Sunday, August 11, 2013

Is Texas using Back-Door Discrimination to Disenfranchise Hispanic Voters?

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is suing Texas for allegedly violating part of the Voting Rights Act, claiming that Texas Republicans redrew district boundaries purposely to alienate Hispanic voters. Texas responded by saying they didn't redraw the boundaries to alienate Hispanics but to make it more difficult for Democrats to get elected. And if Hispanics tend to vote overwhelmingly Democratic, well, that just makes them collateral damage. So, I guess the question then becomes, Is it legal (moral, ethical) to discriminate against a minority group simply by virtue of their political preference? Isn't this really a form of de facto segregation?

In 1970 the Supreme Court ruled in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education that schools that were segregated only because local neighborhoods tended to be segregated were still denying equal education under Brown v. Board of Education. The majority interpretation was that Brown was a charge to integrate schools rather than a charge to no longer segregate. Voting districts are not schools, but this type of de facto segregation exists in the voting districts and Holder may have the rule of law on his side.

On the other hand, four years later, the Supreme Court ruled in Milliken v. Bradley that school districts were under no obligation to force integration if schools were segregated due to the existing segregation within the neighborhoods but only if the schools themselves had a prior policy of segregation. Again, we're not dealing with schools here, but parallels can be drawn.

The basic question is, If the people of Texas choose to live in a certain neighborhood in order to be closer to their own ethnic group and if that ethnic group tends to vote a certain way, can the district maps be redrawn in such a way that it disenfranchises them due to their voting record even if that means it also disenfranchises them due to their ethnicity, which is clearly against the law?

I guess we'll see.

Sunday, August 04, 2013

Another Example of People being Honest

I was doing a little shopping at Walmart today and at checkout I used the Debit Card option because I needed some cash back to use at the State Fair. But I was so preoccupied with making sure I recorded the transaction on my checkbook app that I forgot I had ordered cash back. I started to walk away. There was no one behind me in line but I heard some gentleman in the next aisle call out, "Sir!" I turned around and he pointed at the cash dispenser. There was my $60 just hanging there. It could have been a nice windfall for the next person up, or for the guy who noticed. But he decided to be honest, as I'm sure most people would. I offered my thanks, took my cash and went on my way, knowing that had it not been for that honest stranger, my day could have gone so much worse after I had gotten to the fair.

What would you do in these hypothetical scenarios?

A. You find a $20 bill lying on the floor of the supermarket, no one around. Would you keep it or take it to the customer service desk?
B. You see a shopper in front of you at the checkout drop a $20 bill on the floor and didn't notice. No one else noticed but you. Would you keep it or give it back?
C. The cashier accidentally gives you $20 too much and doesn't catch it. You catch it after you have left the cashier and head out of the store. Would you just keep it or take it back?

As for me...

A. I would keep it. There is no way to identify the owner of the cash and if you don't keep it where would it go?
B. I would give it back to the person who dropped it. I know where it came from.
C. I've done it both ways, but not with as much as $20. But typically, I would keep it. The cashier will not be docked for it because that is illegal. She might be reprimanded and even fired if it keeps happening, but that's all on the cashier, not you. It was his/her mistake. Just enjoy a little schadenfreude and keep the cash.

Study Shows Outside Smoke is Bad Too

It can be just as annoying to have to breathe someone's nasty cigarette smoke outside as it is inside. Indiana has banned most smoking inside public buildings, but it is still permitted in parks and outside dining areas. The next step should be for the state to ban smoking in these areas, too. The ONLY place that it should be legal to smoke is inside your own home (sans kids) or on your own property or in a smoking-designated area.

http://www.570news.com/2013/08/03/study-finds-second-smoke-a-risk-even-on-patios-advocates-push-for-ban/